On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > the issue here is NOT whether or not DHCP-assigned, but the stability > > > of IPv4 address. i'm not sure what is the best way to phrase it. > > > > Are there specific problems of stability of such an address? Could > > you elaborate? > > changing NS for x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.2.0.0.2.ip6.int. every hour is not > pretty.
True. But many DHCP's are much more longer-lived than that. Actually, if your address is changing hourly, you probably won't bother to go register (manually, through webbrowser!) the reverse mapping every time it changes. So there is already a control mechanism in place :-). But if folks think that makes sense, I guess one could replace the current "DHCP might bite you" text with something describing that the users might not bother to update their reverses if their address changes too often -- and that that's a feature! Additionally, one could mention that the system could include a "rate-limiting" if this is seen as a problem. E.g., that you can only change the reverse records corresponding to an address once a day, or whatever. (Some DHCP addresses/provides provide quite stable addresses. My home address stayed stable for over a year -- I haven't even bothered to get a static one. But there are probably operators who intentionally keep the leases short.) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
